June 09, 2004

• Goodness. I feel so sorry for the poor guy. He seems bright, intelligent, witty - and he's being stretched to breaking point between two irreconcilable positions. From my perspective, of course, I would say that his sexuality is innate, while his religion is merely an opinion that he can change - but I'm fully aware that a belief so firmly ingrained as that could be just as hard to change (or rather, suppress) as a pre-determined characteristic. And moreover, that belief feels like it comes from the part of us that we truly value, that makes us us - the mind, the soul, whatever - whilst the sexual impulse can feel merely like a burden, something imposed by fallible flesh. Caught in such a dilemma, which would any of us choose to try and change? (His latest post about genetics and evolution is, of course, erroneous; unfortunately Haloscan's gone flappy up the wazzoo, so I can't tell him that...) I haven't seen the adverts, btw - any links? I'll be checking back on this regularly now; thanks, entertainer. Something's going to have to give - his sexual preference, his religion, or him. I sincerely hope it's not the third; others may with to pray for the same thing.
• People do sometimes change without trauma. Though Tom's still gay, apparently - just happily married to a woman.
• wish to pray, godammit. True, Plegmund, very true - unbroken link, btw - but that's a product of circumstance, and one that I suspect is more likely in someone who isn't trying to fight one or the other inclination. If you're happy and accepting of who and what you are, my inner pop-psychologist suggests, you're likely to be more open to any happy arrangement that presents itself. If you're aware you're doing something in order to desperately avoid something else, then I would hold out much less hope for a happy ending. I know plenty of people who've swapped sexual preference (in both directions) because they fell in love, and it was fine. But I've also known a few people who weren't contented before they moved, one way or the other, and they didn't become any happier for it. /glib generalisations
• What I never understood is that, if God really gives a damn who you love (or what you eat, or how you dress, or where/when/if you worship, etc), he's not much of a God, is he? If such silly things can genuinely damage or offend him, he should probably stop being so thin-skinned. I mean, what do we tell parents who raised a child to be a doctor, and drilled into him from day one that medicine is where it's at, when the child decides to be a circus clown? Suck it up, love him anyway. If God can't do that, then eff him. Also, I like the fact that it says "Older Bollocks" on this page.
• [This is sad.]
• i emailed him with a book recommendation, "Finding Your Own North Star: Claiming the Life You Were Meant to Live." it's a great book for anyone who is confused and searching. i highly recommend it.
• Gay or straight, he's not a very good writer, and i could barely even skim his babblings. hi-yo!
• Looks like the comments are working again. I don't think he's a bad writer at all. His style is just unique.
• Just curious: Do we know this is real, and not put-up as "proof" that "gays can get right with God?" Not trying to be cynical, but it ain't out of the realm of possibility, especially given that he's advertising. If it is real, my heart goes out to the poor guy. When I was younger, I went through the religious tug-o-war of what I really felt versus what I thought God wanted me to feel. Sucks.
• Uniquely bad writing style, rather.
• Jeeze, this is sad. I wish him the best in life, but I wonder if he'll consider having children and risk propagating "the gay gene"?
• from what i've heard, talking to folks in the know, the "gay gene" will never be found because the people looking for it are pushing an agenda. some want to prove it's genetic, others don't, and that colors not only their research but their willingness to support each other's findings (or even whether or not they will let them get published). it is pretty darn clear to anyone interested enough to pursue the matter that it is not a choice, though. it might be something as simple as a change in hormone levels in mom during a crucial point in development. clearly in animals that give birth to large litters of kids there are what we call "position effects", where blood flows through placentas in a pattern, meaning kids downstream of a brother or sister get a different hormone dose depending on the sex and number of the upstream kids. and in humans, we already know that prior births can affect the uterine environment for later kids - mostly we know about this in terms of antigens mom develops against kid A, which affect kid B, but... all the evidence now says the only known "risk" factors (and i quote that because i'm not trying to say gay = bad here folks) anyway the only factors seem to be the number of older brothers. gay men tend to not be the first-born child, and the more older brothers one has the greater chance one seems to have of being gay. and mentally retarded. and schizophrenic. and left-handed. proportionally, all the above groups have more older brothers than righties, straights, non-schizos, and non-mentally retarded boys. these are probabilities here, and maybe nothing more than that - not necessarily causal relationships - but there's a trend here that holds up in large-scale population studies. and to make it even better, the same does not hold true for lesbians, nobody's worked that one out yet. anyway good luck to this guy, hope he doesn't end up miserable like most "ex-gays" you hear about. from what i've read, people go from being gay and happy to being gay and miserable, with all the added fun of god-guilt hung around their necks and a significant other who amounts to little more than a beard. but that's only what i've read. maybe there are really some "success" stories. (and i put "success" in quotes because i feel there's no more chance of a gay person "turning straight" than there is a chance of me working through my hetero issues with the help of god to the point where i am only aroused by ficus trees. you can't change what turns you on. if it's boobies, great. go find someone with boobies. if it's weiners, great. go find you a big one. if it's both, well, there are people with both, or take them one at a time, or invite more than one person over, whatever floats your boat. if it's some sort of animal, that's nice but please keep it to yourself, thanks.) oh and for those of you who've been waiting: here's some capital letters to let you know my shift key really does work: AP IHN JIUI GP IBPUIBJVUY. thank you, that is all.
• caution, I recently did a post on my site about "ex-gays" and how many people don't seem to like the idea of "ex-gay". In fact, they will not even acknowledge that they are ex-gay. Which insults quite a few ex-gays, some of whom I know.
• Why doesn't this guy want to be gay? Has he said?
• Because he believes it's wrong. Yes, he believes God disapproves, but he's said he feels in his heart and gut that it's wrong.
• i hate guilt. it's such a destructive emotion.
• Rightly or wrongly, he also seems to believe his sexual attraction to men was caused by being sexually abused by a man when he was a kid. I feel for the guy. If every time he has gay sex he is reminded of being abused, no wonder he's not so happy that he's gay.
• Although personally, I feel a great deal of skepticism about his chosen method of dealing with his abuse. I'm betting heterosexual sex, if he can bring himself to engage in it, will remind him of the abuse too.
• I don't know about changing from gay to straight, but I too wanna be right with god. Gonna go kosher. I will let all my monkey friends know about my upcoming blog about giving up cheeseburgers, shrimp and pork chops.
• krebs, I could be wrong, but I think he's trying to "get right with God", which would indicate a whole change in the way he lives his life. Including having sex (he's not married, so technically he's fornicating every time he has sex, regardless of whether it's a man or woman he's with). The problem that seems to be fairly common for people with gender/sexuality issues is that they turn to sex as a comfort; they see it as a way to push pain behind them, if only for a little while. He even says that whenever he had sex with someone, he would feel good for a little while, but then would feel worse and worse. That's because sex is hardly therapeutic; if anything, it's inflamatory, especially for someone who is vulnerable and struggling.
• i hate guilt. it's such a destructive emotion. SideDish, human beings have experienced guilt as part of their emotional makeup ever since the beginning of human existence. It's an integral part of who we are, and might, just might, be more than just a "destructive" emotion. Maybe it's a means by which we can know we've done something wrong. In our enlightened age of relativity, guilt is the hardest emotion to understand or accept, because we've trained ourselves to think that whatever we do is right for us; therefore, any guilt that arises must come from our antiquated value system and our self-destructive emotional pattern. So we try to exorcise it through ignoring the feeling, wilfully pushing it out of our minds. But what if guilt was actually a vital part of our moral construction? What if guilt is vital to the survival of our species? What if, by eradicating guilt, we are destroying the means by which we can understand our failings and faults? What if guilt is our path to betterment?
• there's a difference, f8x. from psych central: Human beings need to have a conscience. According to Webster's Third Dictionary a conscience is "the sense of right or wrong within the individual." Without a conscience we would have no compunction about hurting one another, and the world would be less safe. When your conscience tells you that you have done something wrong, it is important to face it, make amends and learn from your mistake. Staying consumed with guilt, however, will keep you from moving forward in a positive and productive way.
• man i wondered what happened to f8x lately. hadn't seen any posts. then i hit this thread, and suddenly, f8x. everyone's favorite opponent in anything smacking of a conservative vs. liberal discussion. so, where you been, f8x? or have i just been reading the wrong threads? and don't get me wrong, without an opposing viewpoint we'd have no decent discussions. i'm just glad you're you, and not, say, this guy, for example. keeps things on a comfortable, friendly debate level rather than "you suck and i hate you now go f**k yourself". we really are nicer here. ok. back to the actual discussion thread now...
• oh, i didn't take it that way, frogs. actually it's a good point: do some people actually need guilt to remind them of their conscience? perhaps.
• guilt : conscience :: pain : injury
• guilt isn't necessarily bad, i agree on that. at least dwelling on guilt for too long is bad. but lack of guilt can be good or bad. could be a sign that you're either on (whatever you consider to be) the straight and narrow, or could be a sign that you have a severely deficient level of empathy/care for your fellow humans. i don't know if guilt ought to prompt you to change things, maybe it should (if it's reasonable guilt) but i do know that we've spent a long time as a civilization trying to pass the guilt off on someone else. we do something bad, then blame it on the devil, our parents, the weather, whatever. maybe what's bad is doing something you feel is wrong, then not owning up to the fact that you did it and you must accept the responsibility for your actions rather than passing the buck. but it's also just as bad (if not worse) to take something that you have no control over, like being gay, or having your parents get a divorce, and feel somehow responsible for it to the point that you are consumed by guilt for something that you really did not cause for yourself. in my opinion, religion comes in here all too often. growing up catholic, i was taught that if you do something you feel guilty for, you can automagically have your guilt go away just by telling the priest. and that of course everyone is born guilty, unless they get cleansed of this guilt by baptism. it teaches you that you start dirty, and unless you keep owning up to every wrong you'll end dirty. it also taught me that god expected me to do something wrong at least once a week, 'cause every sunday we had to go confess again. and not having anything to confess was seen as a sign that you weren't being honest. (i mean, come on - how many mortal sins can an 11-year-old commit in a week?) as i got older i stopped going to church - i don't feel guilty about that, as i think that although the message is good (god loves everyone, and you should too), the delivery is awful (god may love everyone, but the powers that be in rome sure as hell do not). as for being a member of a religion that pushes gays to feel bad about themselves, pushes the antiquated idea that birth control/STD control is wrong, and keeps putting down women - well that, i feel guilty about.
• Know what's wrong with "getting right with God?" God doesn't exist. Advantage: The Gay.
• caution, I' been around :-) You must have missed the Reagan bashing eulogy thread...
• caution: i guess where this issue gets really tricky is... what's "good" and what's "bad"? what's "right" and what's "wrong"? so much of life is something in between.
• why does the leprechaun keep on telling me to burn things?
• because you work at an incinerator?
• I feel badly that you got shafted on the message and intent of Christianity, which is a far cry from what it sounds like you received. I'm not here to criticize the Catholic Church, but I am none too pleased about the disillusionment it has caused many people. The guilt I am referring to is not the same kind the Church dishes out. Rather, it's the kind of guilt that results in repentance, as Apostle Paul talks about. Regardless of your religious beliefs, that's certainly not a bad thing, I don't think.
• is being gay "bad"? and if so, why?
• If this guy wants to go straight (bad pun intended) then that is his choice. When other people try to make lifestyle choices for a segment of the population is when we have problems. Of course, there is reason to be cynical about whether or not this guy is just kidding himself.

  A prominent ex-gay leader once featured as "going straight" on the cover of Newsweek magazine was confronted and photographed by activists Tuesday night patronizing a gay bar in Washington, D.C. John Paulk, board chair for the umbrella ex-gay group Exodus International, admitted in an interview with Southern Voice that he was in Mr. P's, a gay bar in Washington's DuPont Circle neighborhood, but said his only intention was to use the bathroom.

  "Using the bathroom" takes on a whole new meaning in some gay bars. I think Paulk should have thought of a better cover story.
• I think it prudent not to get into this, SideDish, not the least of reasons being that we've been over this ground before.
• Oh, come on, f8x, we cut that discussion really short before...
• (sorry to run but i'm off to pick up my one true love at the airport! he's here to live FOREVER!!! yippeeee!!!)
• He's immortal?
• He will be after one "love" bite from Dishula.
• Is SideDish dating Highlander? There can only be one.
• Yay, SideDish! Don't give him garlic or pierce his heart with ash! But sex him up good, the undead like that! Exclamation point!
• I could be wrong, but I think he's trying to "get right with God", which would indicate a whole change in the way he lives his life. f8x, I agree that he's trying to get right with God as he understands Him, and that he thinks his homosexual behavior is morally wrong, but I also think our understanding of Divinity and of right and wrong are based partly on our experiences, and that the way he perceives sex is based in part on his past experiences of sexual abuse. He says himself that he thinks about the abuse every day and that his sexual identity was formed through his abusive past. No wonder gay sex leaves him feeling empty and alienated, since it recreates in his mind an empty, alientating experience of victimization. Unfortunately, I think there's a good chance that any sex, gay or otherwise, will recreate those same feelings until he grows past them. I imagine you are correct that he probably will not want to have heterosexual sex until/if he marries. When/if the time comes, he and his wife are probably going to have a rough road to walk down.
• I wish him well. One less bottom means more dick for me.
• [Yes, it's sad]
• I'm with languagehat. It is sad. As for repressing one's sexual urges, well, I'm sure there are some Catholic priests who do actually go genuinely celibate. It can be done. Why you'd want to, though *rolls eyes*.
• As for repressing one's sexual urges, well, I'm sure there are some Catholic priests who do actually go genuinely celibate. Yeah. Ninety-nine percent of them. And those are the ones who get swept up in generalizations issued by people who go to great lengths never to make generalizations about anyone else. You see, generalizations about religious and ethnic groups are bad. Except when it comes to Catholics. With Catholics, generalizations are good. The more misinformed and mean-spirited, the better. Note: This does not apply in special situations. If you've been calling the pope a fundamentalist, reproductive rights-stifling, homosexual-hating shitbag your entire life, it's perfectly appropriate to elevate him to a supreme moral authority when he speaks out against the war in Iraq.
• Oh my. This is sad. It's difficult for me to truly understand what he's trying to do (and to believe that such a thing as "changing" your sexuality is even possible) but I do understand what it's like to hate something about yourself so deeply that you're willing to deny and repress an entirely natural part of life in order to get rid of the guilt. The problem is that hardly ever works. You can't compartmentalize something as deeply ingrained as sexuality. It's not a tumor that can be cut out. I hate to armchair analyze people I don't know but I am really curious as to whether this is truly about homosexuality or the sexual abuse he endured as a child.
• The more misinformed and mean-spirited, the better. Real Catholics don't whinge.
• But, real Catholics probably do react when their faith is criticized. I'd guess we all have something or other that we believe in enough that we'd lash out at someone who didn't seem to respect it. I don't remember de Carabas trying to convert us to Catholicism, so why don't we try to give him the same respect we'd want from our own, private naysayers?
• it is pretty darn clear to anyone interested enough to pursue the matter that it is not a choice, though. it might be something as simple as a change in hormone levels in mom during a crucial point in development. I have to disagree. To be honest, I'm not an expert neither in biology or psycology but as far as I have learn, sexuality is not clearly defined neither by biological factors or cultural ones. It's is something that it's developed as a combination of both. [Excuse me because I'm gonna make a jumble of terms here] I'm not a suporter or believer of "tabula rasa" but I do believe that having a biological gender is quite distinct from having a cultural one. Our cultural genders are mainly social constructions defined mostly by characteristics that are loosely related to our biological genders. That's an extra baggage that we gain mostly from social interactions and education. What can be defined as strictly male or strictly female is what we have observe objectively in our biology. That is, our phenotype and genotype. No doubt our hormones shape the most basic charactericts from our psyque. Making us more agreesive or sensitive, more boyish or girlish, and if either we are more attracted to the opposite (biological) sex or viceversa when we are young and hot. But, after that, the rest is interpretative mumbo jumbo. I think our best example of true biological sex can be found in our most primitive cousins. That is, primates, either bononos or chimpanzees. As we have stated several times in other threads. They don't manage sexual relationships as something fixed. They use sex more as a social tool than a reproductive one. And because they don't develope rigid social structures as ours they can change their sexual ways more easily than a horny bisexual fish. And they don't really care with whom they shaggit as long as their sexual urges are satisfied and hierarchycal stability is maintained. Feel free to bash me coz, I repeat, I'm not an expert. That said, I'm dissapointed at those who said this is sad. Why we should feel sad for this fella? He's doing something rarely done. He's trying to go straight without being in denial of his sexual interests. He's exploring his own reality and trying to understand it. He wants to know if he can turn straight or if his sexual orientation is definitive. Maybe his tactics are wrong or he's getting influenced by religious freaks. But still he hasn't turned either way while ignoring or represing his own doubts (even if he currently believes that being gay is sinful). He seems to be smart, maybe misguided. but it seems he can make good judgements by himself. And I feel that probably he won't get his problems solved with his forced try at sexual orientation change. But he'll problably realize that on his own without others telling him he'll fail miserably and be unhappy for the rest of his life. This blog is the perfect opportunity for most of us (either liberal or conservative on the subject) to see first hand how everything turns out and learn from it. An better yet. We can share with him his own fellings ons his own words and maybe try to counsel him on his quest for personal enlightenment.
• That said, I'm dissapointed at those who said this is sad. Why we should feel sad for this fella? Well, in nearly every entry on the weblog, he sounds completely miserable. Every desire he has, every "failure" to control perfectly natural urges, leaves him feeling forlorn and guilty. Perhaps he'll succeed. Maybe he will be one of the very very few that manages to either change his sexual orientation completely or suceeed in living a satisfying celibate life. I seriously doubt he'll accomplish either, however, and that failure will most likely leave him feeling more distraught and guilty than ever. I'd say that's pretty darn sad. That said, I really do hope that regardless of how he ends up living his life he finds happiness.
• Well, that's different. One thing it's feeling sad at his miserable situation (not being able to come to terms with his ow sexuality). And other is felling sad at his intentions. Like if he was going to commit suicide (which could be a posibility, but not a direct consecuence). And to me it seems some of you feel sad for the latter, more than the former. Maybe I misundertood you. And for that I'm sorry.
• sorry for being judgmental, also.
• Seriously, this is just sad. I'd never want to be straight -- what hurt he must have in his heart to try to change such a fundamental part of himself. Send him the link about Gay Bath Houses before he withers away...
• path: Catholic clergy are a convenient example in this context because they are one of the few numerous, visible groups in Western society that try to modify sexual behaviour from an accepted norm (heterosexuality) to a less-accepted one (celibacy). It can be done (although the idea that 99% achieve it is, frankly, nonsense, since a proper state of non-sinful celibacy for the clergy goes well beyond simply abstaining from sex with other people). It's quite relevant to the discussion at hand. In some ways, "going straight" by layering straight behaviour over homosexual instrincts and desires is arguably easier than maintaining celibacy, since there's a lot more support for the former than the latter. de Carabas: Does that chip throw your back out?
• sorry for being judgmental, also. I didn't think your post came across as judgemental, Zemat. No need for apologies.
• But, real Catholics probably do react when their faith is criticized. I'd guess we all have something or other that we believe in enough that we'd lash out at someone who didn't seem to respect it. I don't remember de Carabas trying to convert us to Catholicism, so why don't we try to give him the same respect we'd want from our own, private naysayers? Thank you, path. de Carabas: Does that chip throw your back out? Well, rodgerd, I don't really consider it a "chip" when I feel compelled to respond to a sweeping, ugly generalization about my faith. To put it in terms you might understand: I know you know better than to say "I'm sure some Muslims who aren't actually, genuinely terrorists."
• Celibacy is difficult. I will surmise that it was easier in eras of less pervasive media pollution, and less pervasive casual sexual provocation. Either way, I admire successful celibates.
• I'm celibate, although not by choice. *cries*
• I'm also gonna give up my 50-50 poly/cotton T shirts. Because God say's wearing them's a sin.
• Oh, you're Jewish, squidranch?
• This whole thing reminds me of the "Good News" from the first season of Mr. Show
• If this guy doesn't want to enjoy the firm yet desperate touch of another man's velvet-skinned hardness caressing him: slowly at first, then with increasing urgency, penetrating his very centre until they both explode as one being, joined in the passionate flame of their mutual love and falling onto the bed to clutch at one another's boiling bodies, only to meet and kiss again and again in their fitful dreams - Well, that's his business.
• No, not Jewish, but the bible does say that wearing mixed fibers is a sin. Then again, maybe I'll just get the firm yet desperate touch of another man's velvet-skinned hardness to caress me: slowly at first, etc... I have too many poly/cotton T shirts that I like.